Blog Stats

Democrats see one of their primary duties as elected officials as using their majority status to consolodate power and ensure they never wind up in the minority again.

Nowhere has this been more publicized than in Democrats push to legalize illegal immigrants. From mass legalizations just prior to the 1996 election in conjunction with motor voter, to the current push for amnesty, Democrats have been working long and hard to get illegal immigrants voting any way they can — no matter how corrupt, no matter how detrimental to actual Americans.

Now, a study by the University of Connecticut shows kharma may have come back to bite Democrats in the ass. It appears as though large populations of illegal immigrants will be giving more power to solidly Republican states and taking power away from solid Democrat states like New York and Illinois:

Illegals could cost congressional seats

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 (UPI) — U.S. states with large numbers of undocumented immigrants could receive additional seats in Congress after the 2010 census is conducted.

A University of Connecticut study concluded Arizona, Texas and Florida could all see their House delegations increase due to rising populations that include sizable numbers of illegal immigrants.

Although they can’t vote, such aliens are included in the census. The San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News predicted Tuesday the pending 2010 headcount could be the subject of a political fight as Democrats and Republicans jockey for position before House seats are reallocated.

The Connecticut study also predicted California and New Jersey would likely keep their current number of seats while states with fewer immigrants, including New York, Illinois and Ohio, will lose a seat or two.

I think this is just one of many ways kharma is going to come back and beat the crap out of Democrats in the near future. Lord knows they have it coming.

After all, she’s broken the law far more than President Bush ever has:

Judge Issues Bench Warrant for Cindy Sheehan

A bench warrant was issued Thursday for antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan, who did not appear for arraignment Thursday in a Washington, D.C., courtroom to face charges related to her Sept. 10 disorderly conduct arrest on Capitol Hill.

District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Michael McCarthy issued the order to Sheehan around noon, a court spokeswoman said. The warrant says she is to be arrested and brought before the court. She also faces one count of unlawful assembly. [read more]

That she isn’t impeachable shouldn’t matter much — it’s not as if those calling for Bush’s impeachment understand or even care about either the constitution or basic civics to begin with.

Like this:

OREM – Betty Perry pleaded innocent Tuesday to charges she failed to water her lawn and resisted arrest when an officer attempted to cite her…

“Today, law enforcement in Orem has enshrined itself as the laughing stock of our country by prosecuting a 70-year-old great-grandmother for allegedly not watering her lawn,” Allred said. “This ill-conceived action ensures Orem’s law enforcement authorities first place in the [Guinness World Records] for stupidity.”

Without a doubt, Mr. Reid and the Democrats have an obligation to pry deeply into the qualifications and character of the person nominated to the top law enforcement job in the country. What they don’t have is the right to usurp the president’s role in choosing a nominee who shares his — or possibly even her — ideology and priorities.

I had to laugh when I heard John Edwards call the War on Terror a bumper-sticker — I guess one doesn’t see many bumpers from the backseat of a town-car.

Not once since the war began have I seen those words on any bumper, in fact, other than the apparently controversial sentiment, “Support the Troops,” I don’t see many conservative bumper-stickers at all.

But I have seen, “No Blood For Oil”, “War is NOT a Family Value”, “Bush Lied, People Died”, “War Never Solved Anything”, “Peace Works”, “Practice pre-emptive LOVE”, “War is NOT Pro-Life”, “Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism”, and my favorite, “Pollution is a moral issue” (right above the exhaust pipe of an old black-smoke-belching VW van). Often they’re all on the same car, invariably adjacent to a prominently displayed and fading, “Kerry/Edwards 04,” and a picture of a marijuana leaf.

And that really is just scratching the surface. I know you’ve seen them too. There are thousands of such inanities plastered on thousands of “progressive” Prius posteriors.

No, the fact is that there are very few conservative bumper stickers for the same reason conservative protests are virtually unheard of — they’re silly. They accomplish nothing other than to broadcast the simplemindedness and more often than not, ignorance, of the owner.

War never solved anything? I concede it has a certain ring to it. It’s short, sweet, straight to the point. The problem is that it’s also factually incorrect. Of course war has solved many of the worlds greatest ills — slavery, genocide, Nazism, Fascism, Communism and tyranny of all sorts. It has also now solved the problem of Saddam Hussein. No longer do we need worry about that particular rogue tyrant aiding terrorists bent on our destruction. And that, in itself, makes the world a great deal safer.

And yet this bumper-sticker mentality pervades the left. It betrays the emotionalism that is the foundation of their ideology. That their slogans are so demonstrably wrong is unimportant — that they sound good is all that matters.

An excellent example of this has been the widespread use by liberals of a misquotation of Benjamin Franklin they use to protest the Terrorist Surveillance Program. They plaster it everywhere — from websites to yes, bumper-stickers and protest signs — no doubt you’ve seen or heard it somewhere:

Of course Benjamin Franklin would never say such an idiotic thing. We trade some liberty for security every day. If you don’t believe me try exercising your “right” to keep driving next time you see a set of police lights flashing in your rear-view mirror, or try opening a bank account without giving any personal information.

Anyone who would argue that international phone calls with suspected terrorists compromise an “essential liberty” simply isn’t dealing in reality. You can’t cross the the border without the distinct possibility of a warrantless search of your vehicle, your possessions, and your person — coming and going — how is an international telephone call to suspected enemies more sacrosanct than an innocent day-trip to British Columbia?

The constitution doesn’t prohibit search or seizure, it prohibits government from performing unreasonablesearch and seizure. And there’s nothing unreasonable about listening in to phone calls placed from telephone numbers found in Khalid Sheik Mohammad’s laptop. Yet the fact that he had a phone number on his hard drive isn’t sufficient evidence to provide the “probable cause” necessary to secure the warrant liberals demand we get. No doubt many of those phone numbers belong to people plotting against the United States, but if we were to follow liberal’s bumper-sticker understanding of the Constitution, we wouldn’t be able to listen to terrorists making calls to cell members inside the United States because simply being buddies with one of the most heinous terrorists in the world doesn’t clear the threshold of probable cause.

The irony is that the essential liberty Franklin was referencing was the right to defend oneself and the temporary safety was a reference to appeasing violent marauders (or dare I say, terrorists) in the hope they wouldn’t attack. He was defending a liberty liberals are against and denouncing the appeasement they favor.

So here we have liberals either knowingly bastardizing or ignorantly misquoting Franklin to make an argument at odds with what he was saying in the first place. Whether they are being intentionally dishonest or naively uninformed is of absolutely no interest to them, either are acceptable, all that matters is that it sounds good.

Or as liberals in the news media have become fond of saying, “the facts are wrong, but the narrative is right.”

If I didn’t know already how eminently qualified former Solicitor General Ted Olson is for the job of Attorney General, this would convince me:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed on Wednesday to block former Solicitor General Theodore Olson from becoming attorney general if President George W. Bush nominates him to replace Alberto Gonzales.

…”He’s a partisan, and the last thing we need as an attorney general is a partisan,” Reid told Reuters in a brief hallway interview on Capitol Hill.

This, like everything else Democrats are hysterical about these days, is really all about the 2000 election.

Ted Olson represented then Governor Bush successfully in the infamous Bush v. Gore case before the Supreme Court. Democrats have convinced themselves that Bush stole that election, in spite of all the facts. The SCOTUS ruled 7-2, that’s right, seven to two, that what Al Gore was trying to do — namely steal the election by scavenging for extra votes in only the precincts that favored him — was unconstitutional. Let me repeat that for all you liberals out there, the Supreme Court ruled seven to two that Al Gore was violating the constitution in his attempt to steal the election.

The 5-4 decision was regarding only the remedy. They had already determined 7-2 that Gore was violating the constitution, the question then became were they going to stop it. The four biggest liberals on the court came to the incomprehensible conclusion that it was not the job of the Supreme Court of the United States to stop unconstitutional behavior.

Lays bare the liberals’ bald-faced lie that it was conservatives on the court that were behaving in a partisan manner

And so Ted Olson was successful not because he was partisan, but because he was on the right side of the law, and Democrats were violating it. Exactly the kind of man we want to head the Justice Department.

So I say, Ted Olson for Attorney General, Mr. President! He is superbly qualified and a man of great honesty and inegrity. And seeing Demcorats smearing and attacking this highly qualified man of character will give Americans a much needed reminder of just how thoroghly dishonest and corrupt the Democrat party has become.

Dianne Feinstein is at it again. Last month we told you how she had steered millions and millions of dollars in military contracts to companies that her husband profits from directly.

Now the Wall Street Journal exposes a $4 BILLION handout she gives to her rich contributors in wealthy West LA at the expense of Americas injured veterans:

Ms. Feinstein, who in the last election received some of her largest donations from the rich area, has been only too happy to come to its defense. She honed in on the military construction and veterans affairs bill–a sensitive spending vehicle that few Republicans would dare vote against, and that President Bush would be loath to veto. She then slipped in an earmark provision that would bar the VA from disposing or leasing any of the ground. Thus a potential $4 billion worth of help and aid for our nation’s veterans goes bye-bye in the name of preserving a view for those Hollywood actors who play veterans in the movies. [read the whole thing]

So much for Democrat’s claims to care about our veterans.

And when Republicans tried to strip this egregious earmark from the bill, Feinstein’s comrade in corruption, Barbara Boxer, jumped to her feet in indignation and threatened that anyone who voted against Feisntein’s multi-billion giveaway to her rich hollywood liberal supporters, would have their projects and earmarks killed.

Republicans may have had a few corrupt members, but you’ll notice they’re all gone now. We get rid of corruption when we discover it — Democrats, on the other hand, keep them, re-elect them and promote them. (And their corrupt counterparts in the news media naturally cover for them.)

Barbara Boxer for example was one of the most egregious offenders in the congressional banking scandal, yet here she is threatening anyone who tries to stop her and Feinstein from giving a $4 billion handout to their rich Hollywood supporters at the expense of injured veterans.

In addition to her latest heinous earmark, Feinstein was discovered to have been profitting from defense contracts — yet Democrats won’t even think about investigating her.

No, mark my words, the very same corrupt crew of Democrats that were stripped of power in 1992 are still there, they’ve been promoted since, and they’ve been waiting 15 very long years to get their corrupt clutches back on the reins of power. Now that they have it, they are doing everything in their power to make certain they never lose it again (undermining the war, the fairness doctrine, amnesty, etc), and I’d be willing to bet good money that they’re already up to their eyeballs in corruption that will make anything Republicans did look like child’s play.